Quick Thoughts: To Form A More Perfect Union

Sep 4, 2012 by

In the interest of National Unity and Efficiency would not it be wise to have a National Identity Card. With today’s technology, it could store a multitude of useful and valuable information. We would not need Driver’s Licenses or any other identification. It would eliminate the need for Resident Alien Cards, and document Non-Documented Americans which could potentially eliminate profiling, and discrimination.  It could contain all your personal and important information. You could even store information like your favorite meal at a particular restaurant so it could be scanned when you enter which would be more efficient, and alleviate unnecessary errors when ordering from a human. Think of all the wonderful possibilities.

2 Comments

  1. Lord Fairfax

    Intriguing idea, but you are behind the times. They can already store all this information on a microchip and implant it into your forearm, just like they implant similar information in my retriever. Think how much more secure the information would be once implanted in your body. No more fear of losing your cards, no more strings of numbers to memorize, and identity fraud, while not eliminated, would be certainly reduced.

    The benefit to small children could not be more greatly emphasized. Their contact information would always be on their person (so to speak), in case they were lost. In the event of their being kidnapped your child could be activated like LoJack for a swift recovery. Older children could more readily be kept in school. Their attendance and absence being easily observed with the wave of a bar scanner; their where-abouts could be easily determined with the tracking device when not in class.

    In their first jobs and early careers, their employers could use a similar technology to monitor their work presence, and detect longer than optimal lunch breaks, or more frequent than necessary restroom stops. This could be a great boon to the national economy in optimizing production.

    You have hit upon something here, and I am hard pressed to think of a reason not to implement this national program at once. Of course for the nation to really gain the benefits you describe, coverage will have to be universal. And there will always be some anarchic civil libertarian curmudgeon who would place their neurotic notion that their is a tyrant waiting behind every rock and ridge waiting to ensnare them. But such persons are of little consequence. There are simply too many benefits to be had (to personal safety, the economy, and the promotion of national unity) through this program. We must put their personal squeamishness aside to promote progress, the Enlightenment, and patriotism.

  2. Gerber

    I am not sure if you are speaking honestly or in jest. If you are speaking as you honestly feel, I feel I must offer the squeamish civil libertarian counter arguments.

    I know, from personal experience, that public schools hound parents if their kid stays home from school. If your kid has a small cold, they wish for your kid to go anyway. Moreover, if the parent wants their kid to do a small vacation for the kid to bond and learn from the parent for a change, the schools oppose the taking of time off to the degree that some parents lie and claim their child sick. It is already to a degree where parents feel as though a school has a claim on their child before they do, do we really want to amplify this problem by allowing schools to monitor where the children are when not in school.

    Moreover, a tracking device on you seems to be a little excessive. Sure, it would be a benefit in freak scenarios, but in other freak scenarios it could be deadly. Even if one doesn’t accept the tyrant argument, who would monitor the tracking of children? Public Schools. If they can access a child’s location, what is to stop them from accessing anyone’s location? Even if restrictions are put on the computer’s reach, it allows a low security access point for hackers to access the system and gain your whereabouts. Witness Protection would be harder for cases involving influential and dangerous people. A crazed ex could find their spouses location through the paying of some money to a hacker.

    Finally, if this were to happen, as you point out, it would have to be universally. This begs the question: Does the government have a right to brand you? That is basically what this is. If a child is born here and implanted with the chip, do they have to undergo surgery when they are 18 in order to expatriate themselves? That doesn’t seem right since at the time of their first choice they didn’t want to be part of the nation. Also, the question arises if the government has the right to force you to do something because it benefits people, not just because it harms someone. I am not saying the government has not assumed the role of implementing laws for the sake of benefiting people, but do they have the right to? For if they possess no unilateral right, then the argument is solely from that of utility. And if it is solely because of its utility, wouldn’t it be more productive for someone else to manage us rather than managing ourselves? A lot of us are not at our potential in production, whether rich people who horde money or poor bums who refuse to work but live off of unemployment, or somewhere in the lazy middle. That would be the ideal in utility.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site is protected by Comment SPAM Wiper.